Hi all, On Apr 17, 2016, at 8:15 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > why can one now consider LilyPond as having succeeded in compiling the file?
If no final output file (e.g., PDF) exists before compilation begins, a final output file does exist after compilation ends, most users would understand the aggregate error to be non-“fatal”. To me — and, I would offer, to most users I’ve ever worked with, programmed for, or watched in action — “fatal”, in this kind of context, means the application in question had to terminate before *any* [not *all*] meaningful/useful/concrete/verifiable output could be achieved. Surely, if a database made a successful SQL transaction, but the UI couldn’t return to the main menu because of some subsequent navigation error, it would be misleading (not to mention unnecessarily alarming) to say that a “fatal” error had occurred. That being said, if (as in David K’s example) one or more sub-compilations fails “fatally” — in other words, it would have resulted in no meaningful/useful/concrete/verifiable output if it were the sole compilation task — then the log should reflect that in some way: it should indicate that *some* meaningful/useful/concrete/verifiable output had been achieved, but possibly not *all* of it as expected by the user. Nobody ever said good error handling and reporting was easy. =) Cheers, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
